Please note that I do not address you as PKnight and, just for symmetry, I have purposely diminished the size of the K in the original PKnight; I shall now refer to him as Pknight. Out of a sense of respect, I shall address you as Mr P. Knight, in the way that you opened and closed your letter -- "P Knight rebuffs Anatol Leopold Scott
”. I suspect that the other (Pknight) is so accustomed to using his ‘handle’, figuratively speaking of course, that it is very unlikely he would have had such a mental/physical slip on more than one occasion in one document.
In answer to your question -- “why bring J. Guerrero into this unseemly fracas that Anatol conjures up all by himself?” -- I can only counter by noting that Mr Guerrero, on his own initiative, introduced himself into the fracas when he posted an important letter on this site with the title “Garinagu, reparations, and CARICOM
.” I simply participated in the discussion. That my argument, as opposed to Pknight’s, is more closely aligned with Mr Guerrero’s in that discussion is more than incidental.
What you referred to as a fracas started when Jomo Thomas introduced a so-called debate in the National Assembly of St Vincent and the Grenadines promulgating the matter of reparations. From afar, I followed that debate and realized that the opposition in the Assembly offered, from my perspective, a very weak criticism of the document presented to the Assembly. I must stress that, instead of criticizing the opposition on that score, I am empathizing with its members, given that, more than likely, they could not effectively criticize the presentation if they themselves were not familiar with the fraudulent historical details that informed Mr Thomas’s work. As presented, that document belittled and misrepresented the history of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to an atrociously unacceptable degree. In response, I wrote my three-part article
in order to disprove the misrepresentations that informed Jomo Thomas’s work.
As a Vincentian, albeit a nobody who has lived in the Diaspora for 43 years, and one whose right to Vincentian citizenship you wish to deny, I sought to make it clear that I found that very racialist document that was put before the Assembly not acceptable by any parliamentary or international human rights standard. Several times, I asked Jomo Thomas to come forward and publicly defend or explain himself and the position of the government he represents. Having not received a response, I contacted him personally and directly. We engaged in a short email conversation which, frankly speaking, I find so revealingly obnoxious that I would hesitate to release it to the public even if he would agree to so doing.
If you, as Mr Party Knight, can get Jomo Thomas to agree to my releasing our exchanges, I will release them so that the interested public could have some idea of the sickening ideological mindset that seems to be part of the informational force behind the government of SVG. I assume, given that Jomo Thomas heads the Reparation Committee, that he subsequently had a discussion with you, the Party Knight, about our communications. It is quite obvious, given the exchanges between Jomo and me, that Jomo did not handle the situation effectively and that something had to be done by a more experienced hand in order to deal with and stop the incursion into what you regard as ‘political matters’ by the Scott ‘boy’.
Your belligerent response, as the Political Knight, was designed to indirectly defend Jomo’s incompetence. You did this on I-Witness News, instead of Caribbean News Now, by enhancing your illustrious son’s argument on the ‘internet crazies’ while, at the same time, launching a full-scale, back-handed attack on the insignificant enemy-boy. As master and dictator of the Vincentian political world, you promised to ‘smoke them out’ before the next election but, it was obvious to you that I do not qualify as an ‘internet crazy’ as per your definition. I wonder, though, what my little fracas has to do with the upcoming elections. Only you, the Political Knight, have the power to make that little fracas into a political discussion, especially given that the opposition NDP seems to not even know of our discussions here and that, if you continue along this path, you will be doing so at your own risk.
I am not in need of ‘attention’, as you put it. I do not need the attention of anyone in Canada, where I tend to be quite happy being a retired nobody, with two successful generations to spoil. I have the capacity to travel back to SVG and enjoy its pleasures away from the biting cold, for six months of the year. This I plan to do during each and every year to come, with or without a Vincentian passport. (I have been a Canadian citizen for 40 years but I also have the right to dual citizenship.)
I do not need the attention of my family members in SVG or anywhere else, since they know that I have never been in need of that type of sustenance and they are not, in any way, subservient to me. I am not in need of the attention of the Vincentian public because I have no need to suck up to that public. Politicians in SVG are masters at sucking up to a mostly dependent public and vice versa which, more than anything else, is the root cause of the massive corruption that pervades the entire society.
I have no need to become a politician in SVG, to win an election there, and thereafter, to suck the blood out of the people and country. Frankly and honestly speaking, I doubt that the people of St Vincent (excluding the Grenadines) would appreciate or tolerate my bluntness and insistence on telling the truth. So, I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention that I “would go to any extreme ... to obtain such (attention).”
I am sure that the original Pknight’s comments on my commentary have no significance to me and far less to the visitors to this site in that his comments are simply negative, opinionated expressions that are based on no presented criticism or reasoning and are, in effect, an inept and very simplistic attempt by a simpleton to destroy my character. Worst of all, the words emanate from an individual who has repeatedly admitted that he has not read, much less tried to understand, the entire commentaries. The ‘internet crazy extraordinaire’, Pknight, does not match up to or compare with the superior abilities of Mr P Knight. But, despite the many childish attempts at obfuscation by P. Knight, it is transparently obvious that these are two, very recognizably, different people.
In my commentaries I presented a part of the history of St Vincent, based on the facts that I have uncovered, over many years, thousands of miles away from SVG. I do not present a British point of view and, if you were to really dig into my commentaries, you would have to conclude that what I am really suggesting is that, of all the colonial powers, Britain’s colonial policy in the Caribbean was the most inept, destructive, and disgusting of all colonial policies.
Today, the Dutch and French colonies enjoy a very beneficial and amicable relationship with their former colonial masters; they have no need to fight for the scraps and the mulct for which the British colonies are now scrambling. They are not begging in order to stay alive as countries. That sense of dependency, that constant need to beg, that constant need for a pittance from anywhere on high is another of the ‘affects’ that I was referring to in Part 3 of my commentaries
Unlike Pknight’s dismissive treatment of my commentaries, I’ve taken the time to go over (thrice) every word of Mr P Knight’s (sorry, that should be Ralph Gonsalves’) Searchlight document, presented as an attachment in “Letter: P Knight rebuffs Anatol Leopold Scott
”. I should like to thank you, Mr Gonsalves, for that presentation in that I never knew it existed but, it is incontrovertible evidence that my research is very accurate in that you present the exact same facts as did I. But, there are two significant differences in our presentations:
1. You have factored in the currency exchange pertaining to the two different historical periods. I should like to thank you here for that.
2. You have made the central argument a matter of money, reparations as you call it. I did not, primarily because I was presenting historical facts; mine was not a polemical drive, using history, to parlay a huge sum of money.
Based on these two different approaches to history, I would like to point out that, to me, history is a discipline, albeit not much respected in today’s fast-paced, instantly gratifying, materialistic world. Today, few people give a damn about anything that went before. They cast a blind eye on and, hence, unknowingly distort, the past. They march blindly through the present and care very little for contemplation of the future. If the history of anything is respected and properly taught, it could never be used as a tool for inflaming passions of any kind but, if not known or respected, it can become a dangerous tool in the hands of greedy and vengeful individuals.
When that is allowed to happen, when unscrupulous politicians, for example, are allowed to use it as a tool in pursuit of superfluous ends, the result is usually polemical which, in turn, serves only to divide and conquer a people or a nation. By using a distorted version of history to extort money, You, Mr Gonsalves, seem determined to reduce an incredible amount of human suffering to a formulaic, monetary compensation demand, your “praxis”, as you like to call it. I think that your money bias stinks to high heaven and I welcome the opportunity to throw back, as an appropriate descriptive, the word ‘odoriferous’ on your article and your argument.
Having said that, I should also make it clear that I am not and have never been against the demand for reparations. I have stated, under my “Commentary: Cross Purposes: Guerrero vs. Pknight,” that I believe the Garinagu could have a solid case for reparations and more if, as a united group, they would seek to reopen the specious claim of treason which was used by the British to remove thousands of indigenous people from their homeland.
(The rights of indigenous peoples, native history, is my specialty in Canadian history. More than anywhere else in the world, through historians in this field, the government of Canada has been forced to accept and respect, over the 30 years, the formerly undefined and trampled rights of native peoples during British colonial days.)
If the Garinagu were to win their case on the issue of treason (native people in Canada have won their cases on far less), damages would have to be assessed and the British would have to concede some sort of monetary settlement for human suffering and, especially in reference to St Vincent and the Grenadines, for the loss of land. But, SVG (and CARICOM) should not be the front runners in that type of Garinagu case in that a good chunk of SVG is the land that would be in dispute.
Similarly, in the case of SVG and the rest of the British Caribbean, from my perspective, slavery should be an important part of a reparations claim but, it should not be the main theme of the case. The real historical problem affecting the former British Caribbean governments is the type of colonial governance that was put in place for almost 150 years after the end of slavery. The political, social, economic, educational, cultural and so many other basic ingredients that should have devolved from the many British governments to the mass of British colonial peoples and their local governments were not put in place or encouraged after the end of slavery. The battle for reparations should concentrate on that overarching theme and slavery should ideally serve as the opening aspect of it because it is the opening aspect of our history.
That sense of Caribbean pride and independence that I find sorely lacking in your approach to reparations is so necessary to the present and future growth and development of a people as we move forward but, it was carelessly, perhaps even purposefully, stunted by the British and that fact is only now being fully recognized by the people in most of these countries as the root cause of their economic and social deficiencies. But, to prove that case, one does not have to present SVG or the British Caribbean as a totally ‘black,’ (poor, scrunting, begging) ‘people’ as Jomo Thomas and your government have done.
I hope that I’ve made myself clear on these points and that you (Pknight, Mr P. Knight aka Ralph Gonsalves) would desist and stop your insulting attempts at assassinating my character. But, I have more issues to pursue and, because of your belligerent responses, these issues now begin to trump all others.
We’re almost there!